An International Caribbean Online Log about the news and opinions in the Americas and World.
This Caribbean Blog of global reach and appeal is maintained by Bahamian Blogger - Dennis Dames with all readers and subscribers in mind.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Archbishop Urges Bahamians To Consider Positives Of Immigration

ARCHBISHOP Patrick Pinder has
urged Bahamians to consider the positive socio-economic impact of
migration as the government continues to battle immigration challenges.

He
said too often, the debate is focused on the perceived negative effect
illegal migrants had on employment and social services along with
cultural differences.

Speaking
during the Red Mass at St Francis Xavier Cathedral, Archbishop Pinder
said it was important for Bahamians to treat illegal migrants as they
would wish to be treated were they in the same position.

“Changing
the narrative requires that Bahamians learn more of our history, about
migrants who came here and made a positive contribution to the
development of our land,” the Catholic archbishop said. “About how
Bahamians too in the past had to go abroad seeking economic
opportunities.”

“Changing
the narrative means bringing to justice those who exploit migrants,
taking advantage of their vulnerable state. In fleeing their homeland,
migrants do not lose their humanity. They continue to need nourishment
both material and spiritual. Their need for justice and protection tends
to increase rather than diminish in a new land.

“Clearly
it must be acknowledged that no country can support increasing influxes
of dependent migrants. We certainly cannot. Ours is not a new problem
or a simple one. It is a problem in aggregate.”

He
said if the government manages the Bahamas’ migration issues properly,
the country stands to benefit from relationships that are beneficial.

Many migrants, he told those gathered at the church, have skills and abilities that can boost the country’s development.

“They
can and do fill gaps in the workforce that are created because
Bahamians turn their backs on certain jobs. The process cannot be
engaged haphazardly, however. The work must be approached and carried
out with strict adherence to best and most productive international
standards.

“It
must protect the human right and dignity of all migrants. It must be
defined by and infused with all the love of neighbour, which the
Christianity we claim requires of us.”

Recently, the Bahamas has been the subject of fierce criticism over its position on illegal immigration.

Last
September, Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell
announced new immigration restrictions in a bid to clamp down on illegal
migration, particularly from Haiti. The restrictions took effect on
November 1. On that day, immigration officials carried out operations in
different pockets of New Providence in which scores of immigrants,
mainly Haitians, were taken into custody.

The
new immigration measures stipulate, among other things, that every
person living in the Bahamas is required by law to have a passport of
the country of their nationality.

Persons
born in the Bahamas to non-Bahamian parents will be granted a special
residence permit that will allow them to work until the status of their
citizenship application has been determined.

The
new policy also states employers who are applying for first-time work
permit holders who are residents of Haiti must come to the Department of
Immigration and pay the $100 processing fee, provide a labour
certificate, cover letter, stamp tax of $30 and the employee information
sheet in Nassau. The Haitian applicants must provide their supporting
documents at the embassy in Haiti.

These new stipulations were seen as discriminatory against Haitian nationals.

It
led human rights group Amnesty International; Florida lawmaker Daphne
Campbell; Haitian Bahamian activist Jetta Baptiste; lawyer Fred Smith,
president of the Grand Bahama Human Rights Association; and Organisation
of American States (OAS) Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza to
publicly express concern about the new policy.

The archbishop spoke at the annual service, which was held on Sunday, January 11.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

By Ryan O’Regan
Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs:

Just hours ago, the Obama Administration began instituting new policies
regarding travel, trade, and commerce between Cuba and the United
States. Following over 50 years of staunchly regressive policies
regarding the Cuban Republic, these changes are now being widely
welcomed on both sides of the Florida Strait.

A Host of New Policies

As posted on the White House website, highlights of the new policies include:

• An expansion of general licenses available to US citizens wishing to
travel to Cuba, including: “(1) family visits; (2) official business of
the US government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental
organizations; (3) journalistic activity; (4) professional research and
professional meetings; (5) educational activities; (6) religious
activities; (7) public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and
other competitions, and exhibitions; (8) support for the Cuban people;
(9) humanitarian projects; (10) activities of private foundations or
research or educational institutes; (11) exportation, importation, or
transmission of information or information materials; and (12) certain
export transactions that may be considered for authorization under
existing regulations and guidelines.”

• A raise in allowed quarterly remittance levels from $500 to $2,000 for
cash sent from Cuban-Americans to relatives across the Strait.
Importantly, remittances headed to independent startups will no longer
require a specific license, thus easing the way for US residents to aid
Cuba’s budding entrepreneurial class.

• Legalization of certain exports to the island, such as building materials, agricultural equipment, and business-related goods.

• Allowance of imports by licensed travelers up to $400 worth of goods
from Cuba, “of which no more than $100 can consist of tobacco products
and alcohol combined.”

• Financial relaxations allowing the creation of correspondent accounts
in Cuba by US institutions, and the use of debit and credit cards on the
island.[1]

Moreover, the Obama Administration has also announced a review of Cuba’s
often-criticized status as an alleged State Sponsor of Terrorism
(SST).[2]

Progress: Present and Future

While these reforms are hardly revolutionary, they represent a step in
the right direction, and should the administration overcome steep
opposition in the newly elected Republican Congress, continued progress
could catalyze genuine transformation for Cuba and its citizenry.

By cutting some of the red tape surrounding US commercial activity with
the island, the new policies will grant private enterprise a notable,
much-needed boost. Remittances have long served as start-up capital for
new businesses on the island. By simplifying the process of sending cash
for entrepreneurial purposes, and raising limits on how much cash can
be sent every quarter, these new policies could spur continued growth in
private-sector enterprise in Cuba, already strong in the wake of
reforms on the part of Raúl Castro’s government.[3] New rules on
equipment exports should also help to alleviate some of the shortages
caused by the ongoing US embargo.

These reforms’ positive impact on Cuba will almost certainly extend
beyond the private sphere. US remittances already serve as a vital
source of foreign currency for the Castro government, and by raising
potential influxes by 300 percent. the new rules should help to secure
imports for an island that, as of 2014 imported 80 percent of its
food.[4] At a time when Cuba is seeking to increase its reserves
(currently at $10 billion) over possible political and economic turmoil
in Venezuela, remittances will only become more vital as a source of
hard currency for the island.[5]

Of all the new policies announced, however, the review of Cuba’s status
on the US list of SSTs provides the greatest portent of change. Since
1982, Cuba has stood accused by the United States of sponsoring
left-wing terrorism in Africa and Latin America. Cuba’s place on the
list, long criticized as illegitimate and unfair, has been put forward
as the motivation for a large portion of US sanctions against it. A
review could very likely result in Havana’s removal from the list. This
would automatically remove a host of sanctions, grant it access to
international institutions such as the IMF, and help open the way for
greater rapprochement between the United States and Cuba.

Conclusions

On the whole, the newly-implemented policies, combined with the recent
prisoner exchange and Cuba’s subsequent release of 53 political
activists, establish the bedrock for progress towards a more just
US-Cuba relationship, but fall far short of what is necessary if the
United States truly intends to normalize relations with the island.[6]
If relations are to move forward, the administration must follow through
with its removal of Cuba’s status as an SST, but President Obama can
only do so much. The true challenge to normalization lies in the embargo
itself, and Republicans in Congress must be cajoled into finally
repealing the cluster of laws that make up its core.

The Council on Hemispheric Affairs, founded in 1975, is an
independent, non-profit, non-partisan, tax-exempt research and
information organization. It has been described on the Senate floor as
being "one of the nation's most respected bodies of scholars and policy
makers." For more information, visit www.coha.org or email coha@coha.org

Sunday, January 18, 2015

The
year 2015 has dawned with the usual fanfare of greater things to come.
Caribbean projects are in the pipeline, along with activities to enhance
competitiveness and many gallant efforts by well-meaning
non-governmental and international organisations. The research has
shown, however, that without the impetus of effort that originates from
among the local innovators, there is no real change and no great
advancement.

The efforts of some regional establishments, such as
Compete Caribbean, in instituting projects that should help in promoting
and developing trade and investments,as well as in providing some solid
knowledge-based platforms from which policy initiatives can be
launched, are laudable, but what next?

There is still little
response from CARICOM on intellectual property laws and policy that will
allow for the development of innovation and trade, both intraregionally
and internationally, and one wonders whether this is the result of lack
of informed policymakers or simply a collective phobia of international
intellectual property law and policy. Either way, there must be an
applicable cure and fast.

The history of international
intellectual property regimen in developing countries reveals that they
have faced a barrage of international pressures concerning their
implementation of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights agreement (TRIPS), which is an integral part of World Trade
Organization (WTO) trade accords made by them.

Among the stresses
exerted on the countries have been WTO accession agreements, trade
sanctions and threats of sanctions, withdrawal of aid, diplomatic
intimidation, economic threats from large industrial groupings, and
bilateral trade negotiations.

Developing countries have had mixed
responses to these threats. In some instances, they have tried to resist
many of these pressures, and this has resulted in low levels of
implementation of TRIPS. In others, there has been hasty implementation
of laws as a peace offering to the developed-country bloc, which has not
balanced the interests of local economic and social policy needs,
resulting in chaos. Kenya's IP system is an example of this.

The
top-down system of intellectual property regimen cannot work within
developing countries without serious reworking and consideration, and
although there is considerable argument for the so-called TRIPS
flexibilities, which are intended to give developing countries some
leeway in the implementation of the laws relating to TRIPS, the point is
that implemented they must be. Commentators who argue strenuously for
TRIPS flexibilities seem to miss the point that it is the rules that are
themselves problematic, not how or when they are implemented.

And
what of CARICOM? The aspirations to a single market and economy carry
with them the recognition that there must be adequate responses to the
requirements of the world economic order and conditions, whatever those
may be.

It is a fact of our current existence that the world
economy is now heavily based on cybertechnologies, which eliminate
older, slower processes, shift transnational transactions to the
Internet, and create new and ever-evolving industries that are
propelling developing countries into technological and economic
dominance.

Singapore, China, India, Malaysia, Brazil and some
others are a competitive presence on the world stage to the point where
they can no longer be ignored. To this end, the United States has been
actively working on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement with 11
other countries, namely Peru, Singapore, Mexico, Malaysia, Chile, Japan,
Canada, Australia, Brunei Darussalem, and Vietnam.

Market access

The
aim of this agreement is to provide market access for goods made in
America, implement new rules for state-owned enterprises, have strong
environmental commitments and labour standards, and, most notably, to
have a strong intellectual property rights framework. This indicates,
above all else, that there is great urgency in the need to regulate the
international intellectual property rights space in a way that has not
been possible through TRIPS, and also opens the space for CARICOM to
evolve its own framework that will take advantage of this new era.

One
cannot but take notice that the United States has completely ignored
CARICOM in these discussions, indicating that the region is not to be
taken seriously in these kinds of international arrangements, with the
result that CARICOM and its single market and economy will be on the
receiving end of whatever trade deals and intellectual property rights
agreements result from this new arrangement with no way out.

Perhaps
it is the intention of the CARICOM policymakers that the region become
the sun, sand and sea playground of the rest of the world, but even here
it is doomed to failure because there are substantial resources in this
regard in many other parts of the world.

CARICOM needs to rework
its policies and get to work on becoming a respected voice in the
international sphere. It is time to get busy in the world of
international intellectual property.

Abiola Inniss, LLM, ACIArb,
is a PhD researcher at Walden University, USA, in law and public policy
and a graduate of DeMontfort University School of Law, UK. She is a
leading analyst and author on Caribbean intellectual property and the
founder of the Caribbean Law Digest Online. Email feedback to
columns@gleanerjm.com and abiinniss@gmail.com.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

The announcement in mid-December by President Obama and President Castro
that Cuba and the US are moving to normalise relations has resulted in
speculation about what this may mean for the Caribbean’s tourism sector.

For the most part what has been said and written has failed to
understand the nature or complexity of what the US president has
proposed, the process involved, or the fact that Cuba has revealed very
little about what its detailed response will be.

That said, the news of a changed US-Cuba relationship is of course
welcome, long overdue and begins to end the US imposed isolation of a
Caribbean nation. It involves the full restoration of diplomatic
relations by both sides and includes a range of measures for which the
US president does not need the approval of Congress.

Although the US president made clear that, when it comes to US
travellers, more US citizens will be able to visit Cuba under what is
expected to be looser licensing arrangements, he was not freeing all
individual US travel to Cuba.

Instead, the implication is that the granting of licences to travel in
12 identified US Treasury permitted areas* will be made easier. He also
said that US credit and debit cards will be permitted for use by
travellers to Cuba, US companies will be able to improve infrastructure
linking the US and Cuba for commercial telecommunications and internet
services, and according to a fact sheet accompanying his statement,
foreign vessels will be able to enter the United States “after engaging
in certain humanitarian trade with Cuba”.

Sometime in the coming weeks the new US Treasury regulations on Cuba
will be published, which will spell out how these and other aspects of
the new US travel regime will work. However, the present consensus in
the US travel industry is that in future a general licensing system will
enable tour operators to develop programmes within identified
categories such as educational activities and US citizens will then be
able to freely buy and travel within such packages on the basis they are
giving the US government their word they are not simply engaging in
tourism.

How this will work in practice and the extent to which current draconian
US rules on the use of currency, or whether Cuba has the facilities or
is geared up to receive many more visitors on this basis, remains to be
seen.

Of more fundamental importance, although not directly related to
tourism, was the announcement that President Obama was authorising his
Secretary of State, John Kerry, to review, based on the facts, Cuba’s US
designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. A change in this area
would not only enable companies in the tourism sector, but in every
other sector as well to be able to freely move funds in US dollars,
invest, trade, book hotels or flights on airline websites on US servers,
and much more.

The increasingly tough interpretation by the US Treasury in the last few
years of regulations that flow from this designation has severely
constrained all third country trade and services including from the
Caribbean, as many companies and international banks have withdrawn from
the Cuban market in order not to face huge fines in relation to the
transfer of funds.

What happens next in practical terms may be slow and uncertain. However,
it is clear that President Obama has initiated a process that he thinks
will be sustainable beyond any Democrat administration. Although not
spelt out, it would seem that he calculates that, in the case of Cuba,
freer US travel and the weight of US corporate interest may force an
unstoppable economic opening that a Republican dominated House and
Senate or any future Republican president will not wish to turn back.

For his part, President Castro has made clear that Cuba will work with
the US to improve relations but that that his country’s principal focus
will be on an improved economic relationship and functional
co-operation.

What this means is that, while US tourism (or more precisely the number
of non Cuban-American US visitors travelling to Cuba) will remain
constrained for the time being, there could be a quite sudden opening in
between two to four years time, but only if that is what Cuba wants.

In this context, the most likely changes in the short term related to
tourism are increasing pressure on the number of hotel rooms in Havana
and popular destinations, and an upward trend in Cuba’s presently low
room rates; increased investment in the hotel sector by foreign
companies particularly in conjunction with military controlled tourism
companies; pressure from US legacy carriers to fly scheduled services to
Cuba out of the US; the increased attraction of sailboats into the
newly completed marinas that Cuba has been constructing; an increasing
number of calls by non-US cruise ships and perhaps, in time, US cruise
ships if they home port in Cuba; and the rapid diversification and
decentralisation of Cuba’s already significant tourism product.

Speaking recently in Barbados about the opportunity, the Caribbean
Tourism Organisation’s secretary general, Hugh Riley, said that,
contrary to the fears in some parts of the region, the strengthening of
Cuba as a Caribbean tourism destination was good news, as it would
attract more visitors into the region and could prove a gold mine for
those willing to capitalise on it. The region, he said, needed to view
normalised relations from an entrepreneurial point-of-view to determine
how it could strike partnerships that would allow it to benefit.

The figures amplify Mr Riley’s point. While overall visitor arrivals
totalled 2.8 million in 2013 – the spend was US$2.3 billion – Cuban
official statistics record that only 92,000 US citizens visited Cuba
that year; a figure that does not include another 350,000 to 400,000
Cuban Americans who visit annually, as Cuba does not consider them as
visitors.

President Castro and President Obama both noted that the agreement to
normalise relations would be challenging and take time. The announcement
of an improved US-Cuba relationship is therefore best regarded in
tourism terms as the starting gun for all Caribbean tourism interests to
consider how, over time, they will respond to increasing competition
for the US market.

*These are family visits; official business of the US government,
foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations;
journalistic activity; professional research and professional meetings;
educational activities; religious activities; public performances,
clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions;
support for the Cuban people; humanitarian projects; activities of
private foundations or research or educational institutes; exportation,
importation, or transmission of information or information materials;
and certain export transactions guidelines.

Saturday, January 10, 2015

In a historic address on December 17, 2014 on “Cuba policy changes”
President Barack Obama declared, “our shift in policy towards Cuba
comes at a moment of renewed leadership in the Americas.” This “renewed
leadership,” in our view, seeks to gradually undermine socialism in
Cuba, check waning U.S. influence in the region, and inhibit a growing
continental Bolivarian movement towards Latin American liberation,
integration, and sovereignty. To be sure, normalization of relations
with Cuba and the release of Gerardo Hernández, Ramón Labañino and
Antonio Guerrero were long overdue, and the reunification of Alan Gross
with his family was an important and welcome gesture. The rapprochement
between the United States and Cuba and the simultaneous imposition of a
new round of sanctions by the U.S. against Venezuela, however, do not
signal a change in overall U.S. strategy but only a change in tactics.
As President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro remarked in a letter to President Raul Castro
“there is still a long road to travel in order to arrive at the point
that Washington recognizes we are no longer its back yard…” (December
20, 2014).

From Embargo to Deployment of U.S. Soft Power in Cuba

The Obama gambit arguably seeks to move Cuba as far as possible
towards market oriented economic reforms, help build the political
community of dissidents on the island, and improve U.S. standing in the
region, and indeed in the world. In a Miami Herald op-ed piece
(December 22, 2014), John Kerry (Secretary of State), Penny Pritzker
(Secretary of Commerce) and Jacob J. Lew (Treasury Secretary) wrote that
normalization of relations between the U.S. and Cuba will “increase the
ability of Americans to provide business training and other support for
Cuba’s nascent private sector” and that this will “put American
businesses on a more equal footing.” Presumably the op-ed is referring
to “equal footing” with other nations that have been doing business for
years with Cuba despite the embargo. The essay also indicates that the
U.S. will continue its “strong support for improved human-rights
conditions and democratic reforms in Cuba” by “empowering civil society
and supporting the freedom of individuals to exercise their freedoms of
speech and assembly.” Such a version of “empowering civil society” is
probably consistent with decades of U.S. clandestine attempts to subvert
the Cuban government, documented by Jon Elliston in Psy War on Cuba: The declassified history of U.S. anti-Castro propaganda (Ocean Press: 1999). It is also in line with more recent efforts, through USAID funded social media (phony Cuban Twitter) and a four year project to promote “Cuban rap music”
both of which ended in 2012, designed to build dissident movements
inside Cuba. In December 2014, Matt Herrick, spokesman for USAID,
defended the latter unsuccessful covert program saying, “It seemed like a
good idea to support civil society” and that “it’s not something we are
embarrassed about in any way.” Moreover, a fact sheet
on normalization published by the U.S. Department of State mentions
that funding for “democracy programming” will continue and that “our
efforts are aimed at promoting the independence of the Cuban people so
they do not need to rely on the Cuban state” (December 17, 2014). The
Cuban government, though, has a different take on the meaning of
“independence of the Cuban people.” They emphasize “sovereign equality,”
“national independence,” and “self determination.” In an address on normalization,
Raul Castro insisted on maintaining Cuban sovereignty and stated “we
have embarked on the task of updating our economic model in order to
build a prosperous and sustainable Socialism” (December 17, 2014).
Obviously the ideological differences between Washington and Havana will
shape the course of economic and political engagement between these two
nations in the months and years ahead.

Rapprochement Between the U.S. and U.S. Isolation in Latin America

Through normalization of relations with Cuba, the U.S. also seeks to end its increasing isolation in the region. Secretary of State John Kerry, in his Announcement of Cuba Policy Changes,
remarked that “not only has this policy [embargo] failed to advance
America’s goals, it has actually isolated the United States instead of
isolating Cuba” (December 17, 2014). In October 2014, the United Nations
General Assembly voted against the U.S. Cuba embargo for the 23rd
year in a row, with only the U.S. and Israel voting in favor. The
inclusion of Cuba in the political and, to a certain degree, economic
life of Latin America, has also been part of a larger expression of
Latin American solidarity that clearly repudiates regional subordination
to Washington. Since the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena
(April 2012), the U.S. has been on very clear notice by the Community of
Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) that there will be no
seventh Summit of the Americas in Panama in April without Cuba, a
condition to which Washington has ceded.

The flip side of Washington’s growing “isolation” has been the
critically important regional diversification of diplomatic and
commercial relations between Latin America and the BRICS
nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and the
construction of alternative development banks and currency reserves to
gradually replace the historically onerous terms of the World Bank and
the International Monetary Fund. The financial powerhouse of the BRICS
nations is China. Over the past year, China has sent high level
delegations to visit CELAC nations and in some cases these meetings have
resulted in significant commercial agreements. As a follow up, there
will be a CELAC–China forum in Beijing in January 2015 whose main
objective, reports Prensa Latina,
“is exchange and dialogue in politics, trade, economy and culture.”
These ties with BRICS and other nations are consistent with the Chavista
goal that the Patria Grande ought to contribute to building a
multi-polar world and resist subordination to any power block on the
planet. By bringing a halt to its growing isolation, Washington would be
in a better position to increase its participation in regional
commerce. The terms of economic engagement with most of Latin America,
however, will no longer be determined by a Washington consensus, but by a
North—South consensus. The Obama gambit, though, appears to be trading
one source of alienation (embargo against Cuba) for another (sanctions
against Venezuela).

Obama’s Gambit: Pushing Back the Bolivarian Cause at its Front Line–Venezuela

The Obama administration’s move to normalize relations with Cuba,
while a welcome change of course, can be seen as a modification in
tactics to advance the neoliberal agenda as far as possible in Havana
while ending a policy that only serves to further erode U.S. influence
in the region. Such diplomacy is in line with what appears to be a major
U.S. policy objective of ultimately rolling back the ‘pink tide’, that
is, the establishment, by democratic procedures, of left and center left
regimes in two thirds of Latin American nations. It is this tide that
has achieved some measure of progress in liberating much of Latin
America from the structural inequality, social antagonism, and
subordination to transnational corporate interests intrinsic to
neoliberal politics and economics. And it is the continental Bolivarian
emphasis on independence, integration, and sovereignty that has
fortified the social movements behind this tide.

The Obama gambit, from a hemispheric point of view, constitutes a
tactical shift away from the failed U.S. attempt to isolate and bring
the Cuban revolution to its knees through coercion, to an
intensification of its fifteen year effort to isolate and promote regime
change in Venezuela. The reason for this tactical shift is
that Venezuela, as the front line in the struggle for the Bolivarian
cause of an increasingly integrated and sovereign Latin America, has
become the biggest obstacle to the restoration of U.S. hegemony and the
rehabilitation of the neoliberal regime in the Americas.

If this interpretation of U.S. hemispheric policy is near the mark,
Obama’s grand executive gesture towards Cuba is immediately related to
the context of Washington’s unrelenting antagonism towards Chavismo and,
in particular, to the latest imposition of sanctions
against Caracas. The reason for this is quite transparent. It has been
Venezuela, more than Cuba, during the past fifteen years, that has
played the leading role in the change of the balance of forces in the
region on the side of sovereignty for the peoples of the Americas,
especially through its leadership role in ALBA, CELAC, UNASUR and
MERCOSUR, associations that do not include the U.S. and Canada.
Argentine sociologist Atilio Boron,
in an interview with Katu Arkonada of Rebelión (June 24, 2014), points
out, “It is no accident…that Venezuela in particular is in the cross
hairs of the empire, and for this reason we must be clear that the
battle of Venezuela is our Stalingrad. If Venezuela succumbs before the
brutal counter offensive of the United States…the rest of the processes
of change underway on the continent, whether very radical or very
moderate, will end with the same fate.” The latest U.S. sanctions
against Venezuela can be viewed as one component of this counter
offensive. It is to a closer look at the sanctions bill, signed into law
by the president on December 18, 2014, that we now turn.

The “Venezuela Defense of Human Rights and Civil Society Act of 2014”
(S 2142) not only targets Venezuelan officials whom U.S. authorities
accuse of being linked to human rights abuses by freezing their assets
and revoking their travel visas (Sec. 5 (b) (1) (A) (B)), it also
promises to step up U.S. political intervention in Venezuela by
continuing “to support the development of democratic political processes
and independent civil society in Venezuela” (section 4 (4)) and by
reviewing the effectiveness of “broadcasting, information distribution,
and circumvention technology distribution in Venezuela” (section 6). One
of the instruments of this support for “democratic political processes”
has been the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Sociologist Kim Scipes
argues that, “the NED and its institutes are not active in Venezuela to
help promote democracy, as they claim, but in fact, to act against
popular democracy in an effort to restore the rule of the elite,
top-down democracy” (February 28 – March 2, 2014). Independent
journalist Garry Leech, in his article entitled “Agents of Destabilization: Washington Seeks Regime Change in Venezuela,”
(March 4, 2014) examines Wikileaks cables that indicate similar efforts
have been carried out in Venezuela by USAID’s Office of Transition
Initiatives (OTI) during the past decade. Hannah Dreier (July 18, 2014),
reported that “the State Department and the National Endowment for
Democracy, a government-funded nonprofit organization, together budgeted
about $7.6 million to support Venezuelan groups last year alone,
according to public documents reviewed by AP.” The sanctions bill (S
2142), then, in light of these precedents, contains provisions that
suggest an imminent escalation in the use of soft power to support the
political opposition to Chavismo in Venezuela, though such funding has
been banned by Caracas.

The current U.S. sanctions against Caracas are consistent with
fifteen years of U.S. antagonism against the Bolivarian revolution. The
measures send a clear signal of increased support for a Venezuelan
political opposition that has suffered division and discord in the
aftermath of their failed “salida ya” (exit now) strategy of
the first quarter of 2014. The sanctions also undermine any near term
movement towards normalization of relations between the U.S. and
Venezuela. It is no surprise that provisions of the law that targets
Venezuelan officials accused of human rights violations have gotten some
limited traction inside this South American nation, with the executive
secretary of the Venezuelan opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), Jesús Torrealba, openly supporting this measure. This is probably not going to get the MUD a lot of votes. According to a Hinterlaces poll taken in May,
a majority of Venezuelans are opposed to U.S. sanctions. There has also
been a swift repudiation of sanctions by the Maduro administration and
the popular sectors. On December 15, 2014, in one of the largest and
most enthusiastic gatherings of Chavistas in the streets of Caracas
since the death of Hugo Chavez, marchers celebrated the fifteenth year anniversary
of the passage by referendum of a new constitution (December 15, 1999)
and vigorously protested against U.S. intervention in their country.
Even dissident Chavistas appear to be toning down their rhetoric and
circling the wagons in the face of Washington’s bid to assert “renewed
leadership” in the region.

There is no doubt that the Maduro administration is under tremendous
pressure, from left Chavistas as well as from the right wing opposition,
to reform and improve public security and deal effectively with an
economic crisis that is being exacerbated by falling petroleum prices.
What the government of Venezuela calls an “economic war” against the
country has domestic and well as international dimensions. Although
there is no smoking gun at this time that exposes a conspiracy, some
analysts interpret the recent fall in oil prices as part of a campaign
to put severe economic pressure on Iran, Russia and Venezuela, countries
whose fiscal soundness relies a great deal on petroleum revenues. For
example, Venezuelan independent journalist, Jesus Silva R.,
in his essay entitled “The Government of Saudi Arabia is the Worst
Commercial Enemy of Venezuela,” argues that the Saudis and Washington
are complicit in the “economic strangulation, planned from the outside,
against Venezuela” (December 22, 2014). Whatever the cause of falling
petroleum prices and despite the domestic challenges facing Caracas, it
will most probably be the Venezuelan electorate that decides, through
upcoming legislative elections, whether to give Chavismo a vote of
confidence, not outside intervention or a fresh round of guarimbas and terrorist attacks perpetrated by the ultra right. For the large majority of Venezuelans reject violence and favor constitutional means of resolving political contests.

U.S. Sanctions Against Venezuela Evoke Latin American Solidarity with Caracas

The good will generated by rapprochement between the U.S. and Cuba
has already been tempered by the almost simultaneous new round of
sanctions imposed by Washington against Venezuela. It is important to
recall, perhaps with some irony, that it was precisely the late
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s establishment of fraternal ties with a
formerly isolated Cuba that drew, in particular, the ire of Washington
and the virulent antagonism of the right wing Venezuelan opposition. Now
it is Latin American and to a significant extent, international
solidarity with Venezuela that may prove to be a thorn in Washington’s
side. On December 12, 2014, ALBA
issued a strong statement against the Senate passage of the sanctions
bill, expressing its “most energetic rejection of these interventionist
actions [sanctions] against the people and government of the Bolivarian
Government of Venezuela.” The statement also warned “that the
legislation constitutes an incitement towards the destabilization
of…Venezuela and opens the doors to anticonstitutional actions against
the legal government and legitimately elected President Nicolas Maduro
Moros.” The communiqué also expressed solidarity with Venezuela adding
that the countries of ALBA “desire to emphasize that they will not
permit the use of old practices already applied to countries in the
region, directed at bringing about political regime change, as has
occurred in other regions of the world.” MERCOSUR
issued a statement on December 17, 2014 that “the application of
unilateral sanctions…violate the principle of non-intervention in the
internal affairs of States and does not contribute to the stability,
social peace and democracy in Venezuela.” On December 22, the G77 plus China
countries expressed solidarity and support for the government of
Venezuela in the face of “violations of international law that in no way
contributes to the spirit of political and economic dialogue between
the two countries.” On December 23, the Movement of Non-Aligned Nations
stated that it “categorically rejects the decision of the United States
Government to impose unilateral coercive measures against the Republic
of Venezuela…with the purpose of weakening its sovereignty, political
independence and its right to the self determination, in clear violation
of International Law.” It is also important to recall that n October
16, 2014 the UN General Assembly elected Venezuela (by a vote of 181 out
of 193 members) to a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council with
unanimous regional support, even crossing ideological lines.
This UN vote came as a grave disappointment to opponents of the
Bolivarian revolution and reinforced Venezuelan standing in CELAC. In
yet another diplomatic victory, as of September 2015, Venezuela will
assume the presidency of the Movement of Non-Aligned Nations for a three
year term. Clearly, it is Washington, not Venezuela that has already
become an outlier as the Obama administration launches its “renewed
leadership in the Americas.” If these immediate expressions of
solidarity with the first post-Chavez Bolivarian government in Venezuela
are an indicator of a persistent and growing trend, then by the time of
the upcoming seventh Summit of the Americas, April 10 – 11, 2015 in
Panama, President Obama can expect approbation for Washington’s opening
to Havana, but he will also face a united front against U.S.
intervention in Venezuela and anywhere else in the region.

Note: Translations by the authors from Spanish to English of
government documents are unofficial. Where citations are not present in
the text, hyperlinks provide the source.

William Camacaro MFA. is a Senior Analyst at the
Council on Hemispheric Affairs and a member of the Bolivarian Circle of
New York “Alberto Lovera.”

Frederick B. Mills, Ph.D. is Professor of Philosophy at Bowie State University and Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.

Saturday, January 3, 2015

TODAY is the 56th anniversary of the overthrow of the Fulgencio Batista
regime in Cuba by Fidel Castro and his militant supporters on January 1,
1959. It signalled the end of the tyrannical Batista dictatorship. It
also signalled the end of the days of exploitation that Cuba was
subjected to from the United States for several decades.

Fidel Castro made it abundantly clear that he was implementing a
socialist order in Cuba. He did not start out as a communist, but was
forced to go that route following the fallout with the USA when they
refused to trade with Cuba. Fidel Castro then turned to the Soviet Union
for help, which they gave, but with several conditions. The main
condition was that Cuba should go communist.

However, American journalists who interviewed Castro in the 1960s
reported that what obtained in Cuba was not communism in the classical
sense, but Castro-type socialism, later known as the Cuban model. And
many who travelled to Cuba and the Soviet Union also said that there
were distinct differences between the two countries. Even before that,
in the early 1960s, local journalist Evon Blake had a story in his
monthly Newday magazine entitled 'Castro: dictator but not communist'.

By the 1970s, the United Nations statistics revealed that Cuba had
progressed way above the average Third-World country in terms of
agricultural output, health care and education. The anti-communists
countered that it was only possible because the equivalent of a million
US dollars was being pumped into Cuba on a daily basis from the Soviet
Union. It never occurred to any of these anti-communists that, by even
saying that, they were revealing the progress of communism in the Soviet
Union as they showed that the communist superpower was able to do that.

There was much local opposition to Jamaica's then prime minister,
Michael Manley, expanding diplomatic relations with Cuba. But the
anti-socialist rhetoric only helped the Manley cause and the Manley
rhetoric. It could have helped the return of the People's National Party
to government in 1976.

The Cuban Government gave Jamaica four schools, the first of which was
the Jose Marti School at Twickenham Park in St Catherine. Then there
were the Cuban doctors -- who left when the Jamaica Labour Party
Government led by Edward Seaga broke diplomatic relations with Cuba on
October 29 1981. All sorts of allegations had been made against Paul
Burke being in league with wanted men who had reportedly fled to Cuba,
none of which were ever proven. Yet that was the basis on which ties
were cut with Cuba.

I represented St Michael's Roman Catholic Seminary (now renamed
theological college) at an ecumenical consultation on evangelism in
Trinidad in 1975, which was held on the St Augustine campus of the
University of the West Indies. At that conference, at least one Cuban
Protestant minister complained that only Roman Catholics counted in the
eyes of Fidel Castro.

Socialism and Catholicism

But some will ask how do I reconcile my socialist position with the
teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. In the writings of the popes
going back to the earliest days of communism, the church taught that no
one could be a good Catholic and a good socialist at the same time. This
was when the words communism and socialism were used interchangeably.
There was not yet a distinction made between Scientific Socialism or
communism and the several other forms of socialism. In any event, the
other forms of socialism had not yet fully developed to have a separate
classification.

Four decades ago, the Roman Catholic Church explained that the meaning
of the word socialism had evolved to include even the social teachings
of the Roman Catholic Church. But in fairness to Norman Washington
Manley -- who was never Roman Catholic -- he understood the distinction
between the two words long before many others.

When Norman Manley was criticised in Catholic Opinion for expounding
socialism, he countered by saying that he could not understand the
criticism since everything he ever said was in line with the social
teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. This at least showed that Norman
Manley was reading the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

Jamaican-born Mon-signor Gladstone Wilson, a Roman Catholic priest who
was arguably the seventh most learned man in the world, was part of the
so-called Drumblair circle of intellectuals that met regularly at Norman
Manley's home. Monsignor Wilson, who knew 14 languages and had four
doctorates, might have been the one to introduce Norman Manley to Roman
Catholic social teaching.

The anti-communism rhetoric cost the PNP three elections, that of 1944,
1962 and 1980. In 1944, the rhetoric spoke to what obtained in Russia.
In 1962, it was the Russian ship in the harbour. In 1980, it was all
about Michael Manley and Castro.

Indeed, it was a strange irony when Bruce Golding, as prime minister,
visited Cuba. It was a further irony that when Barack Obama announced
that the embargo against Cuba would be lifted the Opposition Jamaica
Labour Party welcomed the decision. I invite readers to do their
research on the position of the JLP on Cuba as late as the 1980s.

Pope John Paul II visited Cuba in the 1990s. One of the statements made
by Fidel Castro was that he and the pope were ideological twins. Pope
John Paul II called for a lifting of the embargo against Cuba. In recent
times, Pope Francis has also called for this and worked tirelessly
behind the scenes to bring this about.

Classical communism in the Soviet Union came to a final end on December
25, 1992. There was no longer a Soviet Union but Russia and 14 other
states with their own independent governments. Cuba was left isolated
but did not surrender to anyone -- least of all the powerful and mighty
USA, whether under Fidel Castro or his brother Raul. Yet the USA has
lifted the embargo. The former Soviet Union lost the cold war against
the USA but Cuba has won theirs.